After a surprisingly short time, court officials informed us that the jury in the Apple v. Samsung case had reached a verdict — and when it came, it wasn't good news for Samsung. The jury found in Apple's favor almost overwhelming, deciding that Samsung had infringement upon Apple's intellectual property with multiple devices. Apple won't be getting the more than $2.5 billion it had asked for, but it will be getting at least $1,049,343,540.

If Apple got 40% of what it asked the jury to award it, then it probably got most of what it really wanted. Its hard to see this as anything but a defeat for Samsung, which lost on all of its counterclaims.

Quote:

The jury didn't think much of Samsung allegations of infringement, either. They didn't feel that Apple had committed a single count of infringement — at least not anything that Samsung had demonstrated — against either Samsung's standards-essential or utility patents. As such, the company will be receiving nothing for its troubles.

It wasn't all gravy for Apple, however. The jury found that the company's legal team didn't prove Samsung had broken any antitrust laws or violated its agreements with ETSI. Still, it was a meager get for Samsung, considering the jury also found that Samsung can't enforce its '516 and '941 patents against Apple due to "patent exhaustion" — in this case, the fact that Intel already has a licensing agreement with Samsung, and the company shouldn't be allowed to double-dip.

This lawsuit is ridiculous. It's like Ford suing Honda for making a car that has a speedometer and a dashboard. What kind of phone do they expect Samsung to release, one shaped like a box? What was the motivation for this? It's not like Samsung Electronics will suffer much, considering the might of the Samsung Group.

I would like to see a few more companies seriously battle it out for the smart phone market, instead of just two. But then Apple will try to sue them too and probably can cripple them.

I'm very glad you posted this, because it provides the counter-evidence to jvalmer's suggestion and the wired article I'm here to post.

Quote:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer,” Samsung said in an official statement. “It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices.”

Indeed, since the jury deemed Apple’s iPhone-related design patents and user interface patents infringed across such a wide spectrum of products, other handset makers — Android manufacturers, in particular — may find themselves in Apple’s sights for future patent litigation.

“The result will likely be an increase in costs to Android users because of licensing fees to Apple,” Houston-based intellectual property lawyer Steve Mitby told Wired. In layman’s terms: expect Android phones to cost more. “This will drive many Android consumers over to Apple. Next to Samsung, the biggest loser today is Google.”

A bit dramatic.

Quote:

“Big leaps forward are rare; most innovation occurs in increments,” Indiana University law professor and author of Illuminating Innovation: From Patent Racing to Patent War Lea Shaver told Wired via email. “Allowing companies to take a good product and make it better and cheaper is good for consumers. But the patent lawyers won today.”

“The Federal Circuit has a history of scaling back big damages awards, which may spell trouble for Apple’s $1 billion in past damages,” Mitby said. ”However, on the core issues of infringement and validity, the Federal Circuit is less likely to reverse. So even if Samsung is able to reduce the monetary award, the jury’s decision spells trouble for the future of Samsung’s product line –- which is an even bigger financial issue for Samsung.”

I disagree. The judge has not awarded punitive damages yet and the $1 billion figure constitutes only actual damages. In fact, the total dollar figure Samsung may owe to Apple will more likely be larger than reported today than smaller.

Quote:

Apple plans to file a temporary injunction against Samsung’s infringing products. If granted, Apple could ban its key competitor from the market for months, if not years. In that instance, it would be far cheaper, and far wiser, for Samsung to continue pouring money into its attorneys’ pockets in an effort to overturn the ruling as soon as possible, rather than write a billion dollar paycheck to Apple and lose out on millions in sales of flagship products. But the whole process — appeals, injunctions — will move slowly, so don’t expect Samsung products to disappear from store shelves overnight.

This has been the regional model for some time. Western (mostly American) firm dreams up some incredible new device. Japanese, Taiwanese or Korean firm throws hundreds of (western trained) engineers at it to reverse engineer it, copy it and improve on it. The Asian nations use protectionism (both tariff and non-nariff) to keep the American product out. The Americans allow the Asian state to flood the American market with the copied product.

It's really nice to see Apple fight back. I'm a blackberry man but when RIM finally turns over and dies I'll switch to iPhone.

The most powerful evidence of Samsung's misconduct, [jury foreman] Velvin Hogan said, were internal emails and reports among Samsung executives discussing the iPhone's impact, describing the difference between the iPhone and Samsung's earlier smartphones as the "difference between heaven and earth." The exchanges also suggested that Samsung executives felt the iPhone's features should be duplicated.

This lawsuit is ridiculous. It's like Ford suing Honda for making a car that has a speedometer and a dashboard. What kind of phone do they expect Samsung to release, one shaped like a box? What was the motivation for this? It's not like Samsung Electronics will suffer much, considering the might of the Samsung Group.

Ironically, Ford has been sued many times for patent infringement.

Apple has been sued more than any tech company since the company started to turn a profit in the 1990s.

Samsung knew they were stealing and admitted it in internal communications. Apple tried repeatedly to start talks with Samsung about what they were doing, and even offered exclusive partnership licensing, but were brushed off most likely because Samsung was convinced that smartphones were like all the other things copied in Korea. Why pay when you can steal and not get caught?

Motivation? It's not about making the company suffer. It's about doing your own homework, and protecting your answers.

This is about what is profitable for Samsung vs. what is profitable for Apple.

Both companies acted in a manner that was in all likelihood in their best interests.

I think its pretty clear that Samsung wanted to go as close to the precipice of copying while maintaining plausible deniability. But obviously there was going to be somewhere where they slipped and they did.

Quote:

Western (mostly American) firm dreams up some incredible new device. Japanese, Taiwanese or Korean firm throws hundreds of (western trained) engineers at it to reverse engineer it, copy it and improve on it. The Asian nations use protectionism (both tariff and non-nariff) to keep the American product out. The Americans allow the Asian state to flood the American market with the copied product.

I don't think it's quite fair to lump Japan in that group. They're reasonably innovative themselves and with their own people when it comes to new products.

Dude, that link is a joke. I mean the writer acts like its Samsung Korea and not their international operators that are calling the shots. Not only that, the dude can't even tell the difference between Samsung and Android. At least put up something by a tech mag or an actually newspaper, not something that would never pass editorial muster at a college newspaper.

Oh and care to comment on the UK Court ruling that completely sided with Samsung?

Really, I think more of the problem is with Android than with Samsung. Imagine if Samsung's OS was something completely different. Say, it was text based or had icons arranged in an orbital pattern vs. a grid. Would anyone be jumping up and down on the "copying" trampoline as much? Remember- the on-screen appearance is the fault of that western company Google (praised for its creativity), not the Korean one Samsung.

Obviously, Samsung was copying with the exterior of the phone in certain aspects- a foolish decision by the designers.

I don't think the countersuits had too much merit, so I agree with the decision of the court, at the same time the view of the UK Court must be considered, which seems to be taking a more "voice of the street" view of the situation.

Really, I think more of the problem is with Android than with Samsung. Imagine if Samsung's OS was something completely different. Say, it was text based or had icons arranged in an orbital pattern vs. a grid. Would anyone be jumping up and down on the "copying" trampoline as much? Remember- the on-screen appearance is the fault of that western company Google (praised for its creativity), not the Korean one Samsung.

Android is available to mobile handset makers as a skeleton. It's up to the mobile companies to pimp it with skin and bling as they see fit. This is where icon design and layout come in, not before. Not from the source of the code.

Samsung chose to copy some main icons in almost identical form from Apple.

Really, I think more of the problem is with Android than with Samsung. Imagine if Samsung's OS was something completely different. Say, it was text based or had icons arranged in an orbital pattern vs. a grid. Would anyone be jumping up and down on the "copying" trampoline as much? Remember- the on-screen appearance is the fault of that western company Google (praised for its creativity), not the Korean one Samsung.

Android is available to mobile handset makers as a skeleton. It's up to the mobile companies to pimp it with skin and bling as they see fit. This is where icon design and layout come in, not before. Not from the source of the code.

Samsung chose to copy some main icons in almost identical form from Apple.

Really, I think more of the problem is with Android than with Samsung. Imagine if Samsung's OS was something completely different. Say, it was text based or had icons arranged in an orbital pattern vs. a grid. Would anyone be jumping up and down on the "copying" trampoline as much? Remember- the on-screen appearance is the fault of that western company Google (praised for its creativity), not the Korean one Samsung.

Android is available to mobile handset makers as a skeleton. It's up to the mobile companies to pimp it with skin and bling as they see fit. This is where icon design and layout come in, not before. Not from the source of the code.

Samsung chose to copy some main icons in almost identical form from Apple.

Then Samsung is just retarded.

Apparently, they are retarded to the tune of about a billion plus dollars.
Times that by 10 if you calculate stock drop since the decision.